The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Atlanta, Georgia March • 1964 Also in this issue: TENNESSEE'S GROWING PAINS: LESS SEVERE? SIXTH DISTRICT STATISTICS DISTRICT BUSINESS CONDITIONS A New Look A t Southern Economic Growth The South has long attracted novelists, historians, political scientists, and sociologists, all of whom have found grist for their particular mills in the changing fortunes of this region. It has a special fascination, however, for the professional economist. The feverish pace of war pro duction activities in the early Forties, the adjustments to peacetime conditions in the late Forties and early Fifties, and the farm and indus trial revolutions of the whole postwar period have provided a con tinuous moving picture of an economy already highly developed, yet still in the process of catching up with the wealthier regions to the North and West. The Income Story This process of “catching up” with the nation proceeded apace in 1963 in the six southern states wholly or partially included in the Sixth Federal Reserve District, according to estimates of 1963 personal in come prepared by this Bank. Total personal income in these six states amounted to $41.3 billion last year, which represented a 7.6-percent increase over 1962. In contrast, the entire nation’s personal income rose only 4.8 percent. The faster growth rate in this part of the South brought per capita income closer to the national level. Last year, for the first time, the income of the average citizen of our six states was more than 75 percent of the national average. Personal Income, 1931-63 D istrict S tates a n d U nited States B illio n s o f D o lla rs B illio n s o f D o lla r s 50 40 30 20 Sfaferaf Ifysetve 10 8 6 80 70 60 B an/tof 50 1931 _ ^t/anta 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1963 D uring 1963, p e rso n a l incom e in cre a se d m o re ra p id ly in D istrict sta te s than in the n atio n . The D istrict's p er ca p ita incom e, fo r the first tim e, re a ch ed a le v e l th ree q u a rte rs as high as the n a tio n a l a v e ra g e . Not only did the six states as a group make progress in “catching up,” so did each state individually. In Ala bama and Mississippi, total personal income rose almost nine percent, in Georgia and Louisiana more than eight percent, in Tennessee a little over seven percent, and in Florida more than six percent. Income growth has never been perfectly smooth, how ever, as the charts in the right column show. In each of these charts, a trend line has been fitted to the monthly seasonally adjusted data for the period July 1953 to May 1960. This period was chosen, following the method of the National Industrial Conference Board, to encompass as much postwar peacetime experience as possible. The period runs from the first cyclical peak of business activity following the Korean War to the last peak of'activity that has occurred, so far as we know. Since the period runs from peak to peak and covers two complete cycles of business activity, the influence of cyclical activity on the calculation of the trend has been eliminated as much as possible. A good part of the uneven pace of income growth is related to swings in the various states’ economies during business expansions and recessions; the recessions of 1953-54, 1957-58, and 1960-61 are shown by the shaded bars. During these recessionary periods, income in most states either leveled off or grew more slowly than during the expansionary periods. The extended trend lines en able us to judge recent performance by showing what the expected changes in income would be if income expansion had proceeded at the same rate in the most recent four years as the average between the 1953 and 1960 peaks. The states vary in their rates of growth, as can be seen from the different slopes of their trend lines. The rate of growth has been greatest in those states whose lines are the steepest. The states also differ in the degree to which their personal income has responded to changes from re cession to recovery and from expansion to recession. For example, at the end of 1963, Alabama’s income had caught up with the trend established earlier. In Flor ida, however, although personal income currently is grow ing almost as fast as in any other District state, the gap between the dashed straight line showing expected per formance and the solid line showing actual income indi cates that, since late 1959, income has not risen enough to bring it to the level that would be expected on the basis of the 1953-60 trend. Income in Georgia, which dipped below its growth trend in 1960-61, had pulled back to expected levels in 1962 and in late 1963 exceeded its expected growth rate. Louisiana’s income growth out paced anticipated performance during 1956-57 but, like the District, fell below anticipated levels in later years. Mississippi’s income since early 1960 has been generally above the previously established rate, while Tennessee appears to have the most consistent pattern of income growth, relative to its growth trend, of all the District states. Such different patterns of income growth in the indi vidual District states show that sweeping generalizations about southern economic growth can be misleading. In come growth has not been uniform from state to state: In some states, it has advanced more rapidly than the average for the District; in others, more slowly. The State Income Trends Billions of Dollars 1951 Billions of Dollars 1955 1959 1963 N ote: The shaded bars represent the recessions o f 1953-54, 1957-58, and 1960-61. P e rso n a l incom e g ro w th h as p ro ce ed e d a t d iffe re n t ra te s in the v a r io u s D istrict sta te s. Som e sta te s h a v e re ce n tly b e tte re d th e p e rfo rm a n c e th a t m ig ht h a v e b een e x pected on the b a sis of th e ir incom e g ro w th b etw e en 1953 a n d 1960, w h ile o th e rs h a v e not. economies of the six states have reacted differendy to the nation’s recession and recovery periods. In some states — Alabama, Florida, and Louisiana— recent expansion has not been as rapid as the trend established in 1953-60; in others— Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee— recent growth has maintained the previously established pace. Nevertheless, in the early 1960’s, a different pattern of income growth in the area as a whole apparently emerged. •2 • A Blending of South and North These aggregate figures on personal income conceal changes in the economic structure of this part of the South that in part account for the changed behavior of income growth. Manufacturing employment, for example, has not expanded at as great a rate as employment for all types of nonagricultural activity, including, among others, ser vices, government, trade, and finance, as well as manu facturing. In 1963, however, total manufacturing em ployment, after having dipped during the recession period of 1960-61, attained the level it would have reached had expansion followed the trend established during the 1953-60 period. On the other hand, the rate of expansion in other types of nonagricultural employment has not FARM EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME _____smutattsms_____ POPULATION DISTRIBUTION Pircnt if Tibi PipiatiN Total n o n a g ricu ltu ra l em p lo y m e n t in the D istrict has g ro w n m o re r a p id ly in the p o stw a r p erio d th an m an u factu rin g em p lo y m e n t a lo n e . In th e la te st th re e y e a r s , h o w e v e r, it h as not do n e a s w e ll in re la tio n to its p ast p e rfo rm a n ce a s h a s m a n u fa ctu rin g em p lo y m e n t. Farm em p lo ym e n t, m e a n w h ile , h a s d e clin e d , y e t fa rm incom e h as re m a in e d n e a r ly co n stan t. been great enough to bring the total up to the level that would be expected. A quite different movement may be observed in the changes in farm employment and income. By 1963, farm employment in the District states, which at one time had numbered over two million persons, had declined to only one million persons. Nevertheless, farm income was main- DISTRICTINCOM ESOURCES SOURCES OFINCOME,1963 tained at almost a constant level of a little over $2 billion. Per capita farm income, therefore, went up. The result of such diverse rates of growth in the dif ferent sectors has been a shift in the relative importance of District income sources. While there have been only small variations in the importance of the distributive and manufacturing industries, there have been sharp changes in the remaining sources. Government payrolls, which in clude payments to members of the Armed Forces stationed in the District, as well as to civilian government em ployees, increased the most, with gains in property in come and services following closely. On the declining side, proprietors’ income as a percentage of total income dropped substantially, but was exceeded by the very large decrease in the farm sector, where income fell from 14 percent of total income to only 5 percent. This shift in the relative importance of District income sources has heightened the similarity between the District and U. S. economies, although significant differences still exist for some categories and for components within cate gories. The percentage of income from the distributive industries and from services is almost identical for the U. S. and the District. However, manufacturing is still relatively more important in the U. S., while government is a more important source in the District. It may sur prise some that the remaining income sources are so similar. For example, the percentage of income from farming for the District is only one and one-half percent larger than for the U. S. Thus the so-called agricultural South and the industrial North of the past have blended together in recent years. The consequences of this development are both de sirable and undesirable. As the region’s economic struc ture comes to resemble the nation’s more closely, per capita income should rise nearer to the national average. On the other hand, manufacturing, particularly durable goods manufacturing, is still growing more rapidly in the District. More and more, manufacturing firms are either local branches of nationwide concerns or, if headquartered here, produce for a national, rather than a strictly local, market. This sort of industrial orientation, however, may increase the severity of business fluctuations in the District because such industries will be affected by national, not local, conditions. It does seem to be true, however, that this area has made the greatest strides relative to the nation as a whole at those times when the entire country was expanding most rapidly. In that sense, the future of the South and that of the nation are inseparably finked. REVISION IN BANK DEBITS SERIES A change in geog rap hic bank debits series. coverage has been made in the Both the Review table usually shown on Page 6 and the corresponding debits release will now show The so urces of D istrict incom e h a v e ch an g ed d u rin g the p o stw a r p erio d . The m ost d ra m a tic ch a n g es a r e the rise in incom e from g o v e rn m e n t—m a in ly sta te a n d lo ca l—a n d th e d e clin e in the r e la t iv e im p o rta n ce of a g ric u ltu re . These ch a n g es h a v e m ad e th e D istrict's incom e structu re lo o k in c re a sin g ly lik e th a t of the e n tire n a tio n , a lth o u g h im p o rta n t d ifferen ces still re m a in . debits on a Stan d ard Metropolitan Statistical A re a basis for all areas so designated by the Bureau of the Census. This procedure rep laces our former on a city-limits basis. method of reporting debits "O th e r Cen ters," however, a re reported on a city-limits basis. •3 • still Tennessee’s Growing Pains: Less Severe? Tennessee’s economy recovered briskly from the reces sion of 1960-61. Personal income soared to new highs in 1961 and 1962. Yet, in spite of the generally strong cyclical recovery, some economic indicators continued to look gloomy until 1963. The unemployment rate, for example, showed little improvement through 1962. These seemingly contradictory conditions — rising income and high unemployment — may be explained by distinguish ing between short-term and long-term economic forces. Personal income almost always moves in the same gen eral direction as the business cycle, which is customarily thought of as showing the pattern of short-term variations in the level of economic activity. Since personal income is itself the result of economic activity, it would be sur prising if income changes over several months did not mirror the business-cycle pattern. The unemployment rate, on the other hand, is influenced by many factors. A relatively high rate of unemployment may be a growing pain — a pain that frequently accom panies the type of long-term structural change that has been occurring in Tennessee. Throughout the postwar pe riod, substantial investment and capital formation have taken place within the state. This process is preparing the way for higher productivity and income and broadly based economic well-being. However, restructuring of the economy involves channeling productive resources in new directions, and adjustments of this sort may produce un employment and other dislocations. This type of growing pain is not relieved simply by recovering from a cyclical recession. It is eased only gradually as the resources re leased from traditional uses find their way into new forms of employment. that phase in which new job opportunities appear prin cipally in the nonagricultural and nonmanufacturing sec tors. Closing the Gap Signs of Rapid Expansion Tennessee, and the South in general, has long lagged behind the United States in terms of the most commonly used measure of economic well-being. Personal income per capita in Tennessee is still only about seventy-five per cent of the U. S. level. In recent years, economic activity, as measured by total personal income, nonagricultural employment, and bank debits, advanced at similar rates in Tennessee and the U. S. However, for Tennessee to gain on the U. S., the same rate of growth is not enough: Tennessee’s economy must grow more rapidly than the U. S. economy if it is to narrow the gap. The process by which the gap is nar rowed is a long and sometimes painful one. Perhaps it can be brought into some historical perspective if we look at the economic course taken by the U. S. as a whole. In its infancy, the U. S. economy was primarily agrar ian. Following heavy investment in agricultural techniques, however, it soon became possible for one agricultural worker to produce enough food for himself and several others. Consequently, labor resources were freed from farms and were absorbed by the manufacturing sector. Competition, innovation, and other factors eventually led to techniques of production that required relatively less labor. Service industries and the government then ex panded their use of labor resources. The U. S. is still in There is no apparent uniform pattern to which various regions or states conform in moving into the rapid expan sion phase. However, there are certain conditions that usually indicate the arrival of this phase. It is the appear ance of some of these conditions that marks 1963 as a particularly encouraging year for Tennessee. For the first time since 1955, the gap between income per person in Tennessee and in the U. S. narrowed to less than $600. This represents the first non-recession year in the postwar period in which the dollar gap has con tracted. The significance of this improvement is more poignantly established when we realize that, prior to 1963, the dollar gap had increased fairly steadily from $256 in 1940 to $664 in 1962. Another indication of Tennessee’s rapid expansion is the reduction in the rate of insured unemployment. From 5.9 percent in January 1963, this rate fell to 4.9 percent in January 1964. In contrast, the rate rose during the year-earlier period from 5.8 percent in January 1962 to 5.9 percent in January 1963. Building Toward Greater Productive Efficiency Before an economy can move into a phase of rapid ac celeration, it must experience gains in productivity. Such gains are most readily achieved by increasing the quantity and quality of capital. Capital accumulation is a relatively long-term process, however. It has been going on in Tennessee throughout the postwar period and, hopefully, has now proceeded long enough so that the income gap between the state and the U. S. may be narrowed sig nificantly. Over the period 1947-61, investment in new plant and equipment showed much greater average annual in creases in Tennessee than in the U. S. This new invest ment caused manufacturing to become a more important part of Tennessee’s economy. Employment in the manu facturing industries now accounts for a much larger pro portion of total employment than it did in 1950, and pro ductive efficiency has also showed continuing gains. Value added per manufacturing employee increased J33 percent over the 1947-61 period in Tennessee, while an increase of only 110 percent occurred in the U. S. This increased efficiency in production was accompanied by a rise in income per capita. In 1961, for example, value added by manufacture increased 5.8 percent in Tennessee but only 0.2 percent in the U. S. Accordingly, income per capita rose much more in Tennessee than in the nation as a whole. Distribution of the Gains Economic gains in Tennessee were rather evenly distrib uted throughout the state in 1963. Bank debits, which re flect spending, increased appreciably in each of the major . 4 . T E N N E S S E E 'S E C O N O M Y h a s b e h a v e d i n c r e a s i n g l y l i k e t h a t o f t h e U . S . a s c a p i t a l f o r m a t io n c o n t in u e s . M a n u f a c t u r in g a n d a l l n o n a g r ic u lt u r a l e m p lo y m e n t in c r e a s e d s i m i l a r l y in t h e s t a t e a n d in t h e n a t io n t h r o u g h 1 9 6 3 . T h e s a m e is t r u e o f s p e n d in g , a s m e a s u r e d b y b a n k d e b it s a n d t o t a l in c o m e . trade and banking areas in the Sixth District portion or eastern two-thirds of the state. In each of these areas, the gain was greater than that for the District as a whole. Deposits ^nd loans at member banks in Tennessee also showed extensive gains. Nashville led the way with in creases of 15 percent in loans and almost 9 percent in deposits. Chattanooga area banks added less than 10 per cent to their loan portfolios, but were second only to Nashville in deposit growth. Reductions in the unemployment rate in Tennessee pri marily reflect increased job opportunities in Chattanooga, Nashville, Knoxville, and Memphis. However, each of the state’s trade and banking areas showed some gain in total employment based on the December to December figures. The 1963 increase in total employment in Chat tanooga was the first absolute increase in the past three years. Adjustment to Change In general, it may be said that developments in Tennes see’s economy during the postwar period have enabled the state’s firms to make more efficient use of productive resources. Increased efficiency is a worthwhile achievement, for it permits a given quantity of resources to produce more than was formerly possible. Ultimately, resources can be freed from some forms of employment and channeled into others in which they are more productive. The more pro ductive employment of these resources, in turn, leads to higher income. Although income is an imperfect measure of achievement at the very best, it is still useful to view increasing income as one means of reducing the divergence between aspirations and achievement. But all of this takes time, and the adjustment period is often painful to the adjustees. Viewed optimistically, the evidence of 1963 indicates that Tennessee’s growing pains are now begin ning to ease. S a m u e l L. S k o g s t a d This is one of a series in which economic developments in each of the Sixth District states are discussed. Develop ments in Louisiana’s economy were analyzed in the Jan uary 1964 R e v i e w , and a discussion of Florida’s economy is scheduled for a forthcoming issue. A REVIEW OF TENNESSEE'S ECONOMY, 1960-64 1957 1959 1961 1963 *For eastern two-thirds of the state only. Note: The shaded portions of the chart represent the recessions of 1957-58 and 1960-61. This publication is a compilation of articles devoted to Tennes see's economy that appeared in this Bank's Monthly Review during 1960-64, together with revised monthly figures of major business indicators for Tennessee. The articles emphasize various aspects of Tennessee's economic scene and often con sider longer-run developments. Copies of this booklet, as well as copies of A Review of Georgia's Economy, 1960-63; A Review of Mississippi's Economy, 1960-63; and A Review of Louisiana's Economy, 1959-63, the first three publications in this series, are available upon request to the Research Depart ment, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. • 5 • Debits to Demand Deposit Accounts Bank Announcements On February 5, the C ape Coral Bank, C ape Coral, Florida, a newly organized n o n m em b er bank, o pen ed for business and began to rem it at par fo r ch ecks draw n on it when received fr o m the Federal R eserve Bank. Officers include L. H. Mills, President and Chairman of the Board; William F. Baker, E xecutive Vice President and Cashier; John G. Topley and Clarence Duffala, Vice Presidents; and C ort land G. Pohle, Secretary. Capital is $4 00,000, and surplus and undivided profits, $160,000. The Citizens Bank, Hartselle, Ala bam a, a n o nm em ber bank, began to rem it at par on February 7. Officers are M . H. B room, President; and Horace W. Broom, Vice President and Cashier. On February 10, The First N ational Bank of Monticello, Monticello, Georgia, converted into a n o n m em b er insured State bank under the title o f Bank of Monticello. The First National Bank of the U p p er K eys, Tavernier, Florida, a newly organized m e m b e r bank, o pen ed for business and began to rem it at par on February 13. O f ficers include B. I. Pippin, M D , Chairman o f the Board; Franklin J. Kalteux, Vice Chairman of the Board; H o w a rd M . Reineman, President; R o b ert H. Dunn, Executive Vice President; R ichard M . Snyder, Vice President; and R o bert M . Molchanoff, Cashier. Capital is $ 21 2,500, and surplus and oth er capital fu n d s , $2 12,500, as rep orted by the C om ptroller of Currency at the tim e the charter was granted. On February 14, the D e K a lb Bank, Crossville, A labam a, a newly organized n o n m em be r bank, op en ed for business and began to rem it at par. Officers are C. J. Cook, Presi dent; H. S. C am p, Vice President and Cashier; an d J. F. H o lcom b , Secretary to the Directors. Capital is $100,000, and surplus and undivided profits, $75,000. The Five Point N ational Bank of M iam i, M iam i, Florida, a newly organized m e m b e r bank, op en ed for business on February 14 and began to rem it at par. O f ficers include D e x te r Saunders, President; Sta nford P. Skogstad, E xecutive Vice President; and F orm an J. Wil liams, Vice President and Cashier. Capital is $4 00,000, and surplus and undivided profits, $600,000, as reported by the C om ptroller of C urrency at the time the charter was granted. The N orthside Bank of M iam i, M iam i, Florida, a newly organized n on m em be r bank, o pen ed for business on F ebru ary 14 and began to rem it at par. Officers include L. Allen Morris, Chairman o f the Board; William L. M ussett, President; Forrest L. Haines, Vice President; and William A . Rushton, Cashier. Capital is $300,000, and surplus and undivided profits, $150,000. On February 21, the Fidelity N ational Bank of South M iam i, South M iam i, Florida, a newly organized m e m b er bank, open ed fo r business and began to rem it at par. O f ficers are M o n r o e D ixon, Chairman o f the Board; John Gier, President; Jack Weisglass, Vice President; A m o s Benjamin, Secretary; and John J. Hotaling, Jr., Cashier. Capital is $ 25 0,000, and surplus and other capital funds, $250,000, as repo rted by the C om p troller of C urrency at the time the charter was granted. The Peoples N ation al Bank of Huntsville, Huntsville, Alabam a, a newly organized m e m b e r bank, o pen ed for business on February 21 and began to rem it at par. O f ficers include Billy Fleming, President; and C. C. R icha rd son, E xecutive Vice President and Cashier. Capital is $ 4 0 0 ,00 0, and surplus and other capital funds, $ 40 0,000, as reported by the C om p troller of C urrency at the time the charter was granted. I n s u r e d C o m m e r c ia l B a n k s in t h e S i x t h D is t r ic t (In Thousands of Dollars) Percent Change Jan. 1964 from Dec. Jan. 1963 1963 Jan. 1964 Dec. 1963 Jan. 1963 1,106,595 56,498 148,831 429,249 246,799 79,606 1,068,875 61,667 150,634 404,522 241,874 73,233 1,034,033 53,034 115,393 400,695 229,372 74,807 +4 —8 —1 +6 +2 +9 +7 +7 +29 +7 +8 +6 544,561 1,266,421 1,819,408 534,500 154,274 1,161,196 365,029 448,571 1,152,961 1,736,614 506,375 158,551 1,107,074 324,499 441,025 1,068,414 1,711,371 484,085 141,018 1,068,468 324,449 + 21 + 10 +5 +6 —3 +5 +12 + 23 + 19 +6 +10 +9 +9 + 13 ......................... 74,414 3,218,350 152,110 173,049 181,293 217,043 76,747 3,198,106 162,078 176,242 184,191 219,607 67,255 3,057,899 140,085 147,727 173,096 201,647 —3 +1 —6 —2 —2 —1 + 11 +5 +9 + 17 +5 +8 Baton Rouge . . . . L a fa y e t te ......................... Lake Charles . . . . New Orleans . . . . 386,008 93,610 109,748 1,911,572 345,835 81,675 93,856 1,844,729 364,996 82,882 102,455 1,691,623 + 12 + 15 + 17 +4 +6 + 13 +7 +13 STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS Birmingham . . . . ......................... Gadsden H u n tsville ......................... Montgomery . . . . Tuscaloosa ......................... Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood Jacksonville . . . . Pensacola ......................... Tampa-St. Petersburg . W. Palm Beach . . . A u g u s ta * ......................... C o lu m b u s......................... Savannah 462,172 448,520 397,601 +3 + 16 488,966 372,027 1,072,918 457,047 397,590 1,069,898 475,612 353,681 957,443 +7 —6 +0 +3 +5 +12 51,334 46,406 33,785 50,532 44,600 32,606 48,927 44,489 30,567 +2 +4 +4 +5 +4 +11 35,650 56,167 158,016 87,619 73,220 64,700 23,241 113,111 50,218 12,805 285,683 108,003 87,732 587,495 65,873 27,948 55,305 150,619r 74,189 62,470 66,303 21,834 98,170 44,677 13,267 257,697 97,352 88,936 583,737 53,268 30,986 55,316 121,860 74,977 68,670 56,180 21,151 106,688 53,165 18,072 268,258 104,028 81,171 544,554 60,862 +28 +2 +5 +18 +17 —2 +6 +15 +12 —3 +11 +11 —1 +1 +24 +15 +2 +30 + 1^ +7 +15 + 10 +6 —6 — 29 +6 +4 +8 +8 +8 55,567 41,027 71,766 10,314 63,187 25,101 18,140 26,854 61,291 40,817 53,071 42,535 76,243 11,662 56,358 26,569 19,221 28,026 62,416 39,908 50,609 35,019 60,609 11,232 60,535 24,661 18,127 24,219 53,240 39,772 +5 —4 —6 — 12 + 12 —6 —6 —4 —2 +2 + 10 +17 +18 —8 +4 +2 +0 + 11 + 15 +3 11,217 103,583 5,518 27,337 36,980 9,200 25,080 12,608 93,885 5,288 26,355 30,521 7,583 20,361 10,345 91,633 5,466 27,517 29,838 7,749 22,369 — 11 +10 +4 +4 + 21 + 21 +23 +8 + 13 + 1 —1 +24 +19 +12 M e r id ia n ......................... Natchez................................ Pascagoula-Moss Point . V ic k s b u rg ......................... Yazoo C i t y ......................... 71,354 42,642 34,087 57,810 31,579 35,995 30,073 23,810 70,468 39,839 32,871 54,072 28,563 39,214 28,560 19,639 66,115 41,512 30,674 56,891 27,834 36,519 26,493 20,293 +1 +7 +4 +7 +11 —8 +5 + 21 +8 +3 + 11 +2 + 13 —1 +14 +17 Johnson City . . . . Kingsport ......................... 57,637 58,412 107,290 58,536 61,727 107,116 57,269 52,643 92,494 —2 —5 +0 + 1 + 11 +16 SIXTH DISTRICT, Total . 23,797,323 22,923,181 21,850,381 +4 +9 A la b a m a f......................... F l o r i d a f ......................... G e o r g ia f ......................... Louisianat** . . . . Mississippi1?1* * . . . Tennesseef** . . . . 3,054,808 8,021,187 5,426,487 3,334,589 1,068,203 2,892,128 2,822,883 7,275,787 5,146,801 2,989,958 949,318 2,665,634 +3 +8 —0 +6 +4 +0 +8 +10 +5 + 12 +13 +8 360,700,000 357,100,000 325,800,000 +1 + 11 Chattanooga . . . . K n o x v ille ......................... N a s h v ille ......................... OTHER CENTERS A n n is t o n ......................... Bradenton ......................... Brevard County . . . Daytona Beach . . . Ft. Myers-N. Ft. Myers . Gainesville......................... Key W e s t ......................... L a k e la n d ......................... St. Augustine . . . . St. Petersburg . . . Sarasota ......................... Tallahassee . . . . Winter Haven . . . . B run sw ick......................... Elberton ......................... Gainesville......................... L a G ra n g e ......................... V a ld o s t a ......................... A b b e v ille ......................... A lexandria......................... Ham m ond......................... New Ib e ria ......................... Plaquemine . . . . Thibodaux......................... Bi loxi-Gulfport . . . Hattiesburg . . . . U .S., 344 Cities . . . . 2,954,360 7,461,569r 5,446,640 3,139,914 1,027,118 2,879,745 ♦Richmond County only. **Includes only banks in the Sixth District portion of the state. tPartially estimated. r Revised. •6 • S ix t h D is t r ic t S t a t is t ic s Seasonally Adjusted (All data are indexes, 1957-59 = Latest Month One Month Ago Two Months Ago One Year Ago S IX T H D IS TR IC T Latest Month One Month Ago Two Months Ago One Year Ago G E O R G IA INCOME AND SPENDING Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) . . Manufacturing P a y r o l l s ..................................... Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ........................................... C r o p s ................................................................... Livestock ............................................................. Department Store S a l e s * / * * ......................... Department Store S t o c k s * ............................... Instalment Credit at Banks,* (Mil. $) New Loans.............................................................. R epaym en ts....................................................... Jan. Jan. 184 175 PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT Nonfarm Employment........................................... M an u factu rin g ................................................. A p p a re l............................................................. C h e m ica ls....................................................... Fabricated M e t a l s ..................................... Food .................................................................... Lbr., Wood Prod., Furn. & Fix. . . . P a p e r .............................................................. Primary M e t a ls ........................................... T e x tile s .............................................................. Transportation Equipment . . . . Nonmanufacturing........................................... C o nstruction................................................. Farm Em ploym ent................................................. Insured Unemployment, (Percent of Cov. Emp.) Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . . Construction C o n tra c ts * ..................................... Residential ....................................................... All O t h e r ............................................................. Industrial Use of Electric Power . . . . Cotton Consumption** ..................................... Petrol. Prod, in Coastal La. and Miss.** Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Dec. Jan. Jan. 113 111 132 107 119 104 95 107 100 94 119 113 99 82 3.9 40.8 200 164 230 121 95 167 Jan. Feb. 166 156 Jan. Feb. Jan. 137 129 142 FINANCE AND BANKING Member Bank Loans* All B a n k s ............................................................. Leading C i t i e s ................................................. Member Bank Deposits* All B a n k s ............................................................. Leading C i t i e s ................................................. Bank D e b i t s * / * * ................................................. 100, unless indicated otherwise.) Dec. 42,061 42,279 Jan. 137 138 Dec. 152 128 Dec. 177 132 Dec. 109 120 Feb. 115p 134 Dec. 133 130 43,193 138 138 148 119 134 129 39,783 128 168 199 115 119 129 189 168 163 162 165 149 112 111 131 106 117 106 94 108 98 94 119 112 99 80 3.5 41.3 169 165 172 120 95 164 112 111 130 107 117 105 94 107 99 94 117 113 99 80 3.4 41.3 256 149 347 121 96 161 110 109 129 103 110 104 94 107 96 95 112 110 97 83 4.7 40.4 125 124 126 113 94 151 165r 155 164 153 146 139 138 127 144r 136 129 144 126 122 131r INCOME AND SPENDING Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) 8,028 140 117 121 7,467 126 245 119 114 110 117 112r 74 3.0 41.1 114 109 116 111 72 2.6 41.2 111 107 113 114 76 3.5 40.0 172 144 148 r 169 142 148 151 130 137 6,250 129 141 116 6,292 127 163 111 5,880 119 134 107 104 102 104 94 81 4.0 42.2 103 102 104 98 81 3.7 43.1 103 100 104 96 93 3.5 42.3 102 100 102 88 89 5.1 41.4 154 125 129 148 126 128 151 126 134 139 115 116 Dec. Jan. Dec. Jan. 3,065 141 203 105 3,195 141 140 99 3,347 140 146 102 2,969 132 224 103 Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. 115 118 113 100 75 5.2 40.6 114 118 113 100 79 4.8 40.5r 114 118 113 108 70 4.4 40.2 114 117 112 107 77 5.3 40.3 Jan. Jan. Jan. 189 147 150 187 148 149 Dec. Jan. Dec. Jan. 6,565 136 97 117 6,674 134 91 115 PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT Nonfarm Employment........................................... JanJan. M anu factu rin g ................................................. Jan. Jan. Jan. Nonmanufacturing........................................... Jan. Construction................................................. JanJan. Farm Employment................................................. JanJan. Insured Unemployment, (Percentof Cov. Emp.) Jan. Jan. Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . . 113 114 112 125 91 4.9 41.0 FINANCE AND BANKING Member Bank L o a n s * ........................................... JanJan. Member Bank D e p o sits*..................................... JanJan. Bank D e b i t s * / * * ..................................................Jan. 167 136 141 Dec. Jan. Dec. Jan. 7,828 139 120 129 Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. 115 110 117 105 71 3.1 40.8 Jan. Jan. Jan. 170 140 143 INCOME AND SPENDING Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) Dec. Manufacturing P a y r o lls .....................................Jan,Jan. Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ...........................................DecDec. Department Store S ales*/** . . . Jan. 6,243 129 170 118 Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Insured Unemployment, (Percent of Cov. Emp.) Jan. Jan. Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . . FINANCE AND BANKING Member Bank L o a n s * ...........................................Jan. Jan. Member Bank D e p o sits*..................................... JanJan. Jan. Bank D e b i t s * / * * ..................................... 7,979 140 148 126 PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT Insured Unemployment, (Percentof Cov. Emp.) Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . . FINANCE AND BANKING Bank D e b it s * * ........................................... L O U IS IA N A PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT M ISS IS S IP P I ALABAM A INCOME AND SPENDING Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) . . Manufacturing P a y r o l l s ..................................... Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ........................................... Department Store S a l e s * * ............................... Dec. Jan. Dec. Jan. 5,790 122 145 113 5,797 125 120 114r 5,972 126 124 115 5,506 116 217 106 PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT Nonfarm Employment........................................... M an u factu rin g ................................................. Nonmanufacturing........................................... C o nstruction................................................. Farm Em ploym ent................................................. Insured Unemployment, (Percent of Cov. Emp.) Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . . Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. 108 102 110 95 84 4.4 40.1 107 103 109 94 79 4.0 40.9r 107 102 109 95 73 4.0 41.4 106 102 108 92 82 5.2 39.7 FINANCE AND BANKING Member Bank L o a n s ........................................... Member Bank D e p o s it s ..................................... Bank D e b i t s * * ....................................................... Jan. Jan. Jan. 165 141 139 162 136 141 162 133 139 INCOME AND SPENDING Personal Income, (M il. $, Annual Rate) Manufacturing P a y r o lls ......................... Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ............................... Department Store S ales*/** . . . PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT Insured Unemployment, (Percentof Cov. Emp.) Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . . FINANCE AND BANKING 149 128 129r Bank Debits*/* 186 146 157r 159 136 135 TEN N ESSEE FLO R ID A INCOME AND SPENDING Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) . . Manufacturing P a y r o lls ..................................... Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ........................................... Department Store S a l e s * * ............................... Dec. 12,570 Jan. 164 Dec. 168 Jan. 166 PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT Nonfarm Employment........................................... M an u factu rin g ................................................. Nonmanufacturing........................................... C onstruction................................................. Farm Employment................................................. Insured Unemployment, (Percentof Cov. Emp.) Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . . Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. FINANCE AND BANKING Member Bank L o a n s ........................................... Member Bank D e p o s it s ..................................... Bank D e b i t s * * ....................................................... Jan. Jan. Jan. 12,384 165 128 169 12,577 168 143 166 11,641 153 115 147 118 124 117 93 97 3.0 40.5 118 124 116 88 94 2.8 41.l r 119 125 118 88 97 3.3 41.4 115 120 114 90 91 4.0 40.8 167 140 148 165 141 147r 165 139 143 142 126 135r INCOME AND SPENDING Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) 6,977 134 144 114 6,320 126 120 108 112 113 111 123r 81 4.4 41.6 112 113 112 122 84 3.8 41.3 110 111 109 120 90 5.9 40.6 168 135 149r 164 134 145 148 129 131 *For Sixth District area only. Other totals for entire six states. **Daily average basis. p Preliminary. r Revised. Sources: Personal income estimated by this Bank; nonfarm, mfg. and nonmfg. emp., mfg. payrolls and hours, and unemp., U. S. Dept, of Labor and cooperating state agencies; cotton consumption, U. S. Bureau of Census; construction contracts, F. W. Dodge Corp.; petrol, prod., U. S. Bureau of Mines; elec. power prod., Fed. Power Comm.; farm cash receipts and farm emp., U.S.D.A. Other indexes based on data collected by this Bank. All indexes calculated by this Bank. •7 • D IS T R IC T B U S IN E S S C O N D IT IO N S .......I...................I................... i " I he regional economy is app arently in a m id-winter lull, with no d ra matic changes, either up or dow n, in an y sector. Bad w eather has ham pered construction and farm activity, but w e seem to have escaped the rigors of the previous two w inters, which produced actual declines in several indicators. Construction contract aw ard s continue to be strong, and bank loan demand rem ains at high levels. IS Consumer spending ap p arently held up w ell throughout Jan u ary. Average Weekly Hours* WorkedinMfg. Preliminary figures suggest department store sales slipped in February, how ever. Consumers in January were somewhat less daring in taking on new instalment debt than they had been previously, and bank debits declined slightly. The trend of debits throughout 1963 generally conformed to the District’s income trend, which accelerated during the first three quarters of the year but declined in the last quarter. Employment gains, together with the speedup in Government insurance refund payments, suggest a rise in personal income in January. IS IS IS Employment resumed its upw ard course in Ja n u a ry with gains in all states. Nonmanufacturing activity provided the major stimulus, as it has throughout most of the present expansion period. Manufacturing employment was up also, with gains centered in Tennessee, Louisiana, and Georgia. The primary and fabricated metals industries showed the most improvement. Con struction employment decreased slightly, as bad weather slowed outdoor work in many areas. Insured unemployment rose in all states, however. IS is is Dept. Store Sales Construction activity, supported by am ple m ortgage m oney, got off to a good start in Jan u ary. Construction contract awards in District states expanded further, following an all-time record for 1963. Total residential awards for January were up sharply over January of last year. Space vehicle launching facilities and a power generating plant, all in Florida, were among the major nonresidential awards. IS iS is Rising prices for im portant farm products revived a cold and soggy farm economy som ewhat. February farm activity in general was limited largely to routine chores by cold, wet weather. The index of farm prices rose in January, however, reflecting price increases for beef, hogs, com, rice, and soybeans. Recent price trends for some products indicate only a slight weaken ing. Livestock marketings are maintaining advanced levels, as larger shipments of beef, pork, and poultry products more than offset reduced shipments of milk. is is is Bank credit extension at District member banks increased in Ja n u a ry in spite of a m oderate decline in deposits. Securities holdings also showed .PERCENT OF REQUIRED RESERVES Excess Reserves 1961 1962 "Seas. adj. figure; not an index 1963 moderate gains, as reductions in holdings of state and local securities were more than offset by increases in holdings of U. S. Government securities. Deposits declined slightly, reflecting substantial demand deposit losses that were only partially counterbalanced by new time deposits. N o t e : D a t a o n w h ic h s ta te m e n ts a re b a s e d s e a s o n a l in flu e n c e s. h a v e b e e n a d ju s t e d w h e n e v e r p o s s ib le t o e lim in a t e
@FedFRASER